June 28, 2018 - Freedomain Radio - Stefan Molyneux
01:27:01
4131 Why Can’t We Hate Men? Wait, What?
Recently the Washington Post published a truly abhorrent opinion piece titled "Why can’t we hate men?" by Suzanna Danuta Walters. Stefan Molyneux seeks to answer the author's question and debunk the sophistic misandric propaganda. Original Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-cant-we-hate-men/2018/06/08/f1a3a8e0-6451-11e8-a69c-b944de66d9e7_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a44531814a46Your support is essential to Freedomain Radio, which is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by making a one time donation or signing up for a monthly recurring donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate
So every now and then, almost like a gift from the gods of egalitarianism and clarity, comes an article that encapsulates so much error that it's well worth examining syllable almost by syllable.
And I'm going to do that. It's going to be freeform examination of Suzanne Danuta Walter's article, Why Can't We Hate Men?
Why can't we hate men?
Now... Ms.
Walters, pretty sure it's...
is a professor of sociology and director of the Women's Gender and Sexuality Studies program at Northeastern University.
I guess now we know where hell is.
And the editor of the Gender Studies journal, Signs.
So... Let's just start with one teeny tiny observation that Dr.
Walters is probably going to be complaining about the lack of female representation in STEM fields, I would imagine.
Lack of female representation at the top of engineering companies and technology companies while having pursued a degree, I guess a PhD, in sociology and I assume a fair sprinkling of gender studies thrown in.
So it always strikes me as...
Just a little annoying when people say, there aren't enough women in STEM! Oh, really?
What did you take? Everything and anything but STEM! It's like, so basically you just like to complain about a problem that you're contributing to.
Well, never heard that from the fairer sex before.
Now have we? Okay, I'm going to try and cut back on the side because there's a drinking game out there on the internet which says, take a shot every time Steph draws a heavy sigh and I don't want...
Everyone's liver to suffer from my intellectual exasperation.
The article begins.
It's not that Eric Schneiderman, the now former New York attorney general accused of abuse by multiple women, pushed me over the edge.
My edge has been crossed for a long time.
Before President Trump, before Harvey Weinstein, before mansplaining and incels, before live streaming sexual assaults and red pill men's groups and rape camps as a tool of war and the deadening banality of male prerogative.
Okay, that's quite an opening salvo.
Let us go into a little bit of detail.
So this question of mansplaining.
So mansplaining, for those who don't know, and I'm sure you've had it explained to you already, but mansplaining is when a man, you see, tells a woman about something that she already knows.
Now, there's a pretty good solution for that.
I'm just going to go out on a limb here.
And it's somewhere between...
Your nose and your chin.
It's the opening food and sound hole that is very good at using to say to people, no, I appreciate the explanation, but I already understand this, right?
So the cure for mansplaining is magic.
See, it's a real challenge to avoid female genital mutilation if you're in certain third world countries, right?
That's a big challenge. Up until very recently, it was kind of a challenge to get a driver's license if you lived in Saudi Arabia and were a woman.
However, opening your flap hole and saying, I don't need the explanation, I already understand this very well, but, you know, I appreciate the sharing of knowledge.
How hard is that?
What kind of massive barrier is that to overcome?
To express yourself as a woman.
Because see, women are empowered.
Women are strong.
Women are independent. So surely women can speak up when someone is explaining something to them that they already know and say, I already know this, but, you know, I appreciate that.
Thanks. Now, if women can't do that, if some man is droning on and on about a subject that a woman is already an expert in, and she doesn't have the capacity to open her mouth, interrupt him and say, I already know this, What does that say about women?
Well, it's this basic fundamentalist principle that is the real contradiction, well, one of the many contradictions at the heart of modern feminism, which is that women are strong and empowered and equal to men, but men act and women are always acted upon.
So if there's some man droning on about a subject you already know, the woman is incapable somehow, this strong and empowered woman is absolutely incapable.
Of opening your mouth, interrupting the man and saying, no, I already understand this, but thanks.
Or, I already understand this, I can't believe you'd drone on.
Or, if you knew anything about me, you'd know I'd written five books on this subject.
So how is it possible to simultaneously have this double-think that women are strong and empowered and equal to men, but a woman is functionally incapable of interrupting a man who's explaining something to her that she already knows?
I don't know, how do people do this?
Why aren't they like brushing their ass with their toothbrush and combing their hair with their shoes?
How do they function without these many contradictions?
Doesn't it bother people? I mean, how doesn't it bother people?
Well, women are strong and empowered, but they sure can't speak up when a man is boring them.
I mean, you probably have.
I had a boss once in the business world who had a terrible habit of just telling the same stories over and over again.
Like, I mean, not twice by accident, and with no consciousness that he told the story before.
So, as an employee, yeah, you put up with it once or twice, and then you're like, dude, you told me this story already.
Now, see, what's interesting as well is that mansplaining is when a man is explaining something to a woman, something she already knows.
And something that's kind of obvious.
But at least he's correct.
How many times do we have to listen to this nonsense about the gender wage gap?
Which is completely false, which we'll get to in a while.
So how many times have intelligent, sensible, well-read, educated, erudite people completely disproved this myth of the gender wage gap?
While feminists patiently repeat it over and over and over again, despite the fact that people have told them and proven with math, data, and science that it's completely false, there's no such thing as some patriarchy-driven sexist gender wage gap.
The gender wage gap arises from choices made by women and biological differences between men and women.
Women choose to work part-time more.
Women choose to go into fields that pay less.
Women have a score higher in traits like agreeableness, which makes it a little bit tougher for them to fight hard for what they want.
These are facts. There's no gender wage gap driven by an evil hairy palm shake hand signal patriarchy.
It's been disproven over and over again.
But femsplaining Where you are lectured to about things utterly false with the greatest amount of moral self-righteousness on the part of your feminist lecturer over and over and over again, where they refuse to listen to anything that disproves their thesis but just keep repeating over and over again the same moronic crap.
Well, that's femsplaining, I suppose.
Not women, feminists as a whole.
I mean, women are the majority of voters.
Women in general are more than half of college attendees.
Women choose to go into the humanities.
And the more free that women get, the more women do choose to go into more person-friendly rather than thing-attached disciplines.
Now, she also complains, this woman, about incels.
So incels, for those who don't know, stands for involuntarily celibate.
So these are men who want dates, who want women, but women won't choose them.
Now, this is one of the great lies that was dangled in front of men to get them to agree to transfer resources to women, usually through the power of the state, to make up for all of this inequality.
So women are ridiculously picky.
I mean, and there have been studies that have shown that men put about, like when men are given randomized pictures of women, they say, well, yeah, about half of them are above average in appearance, about half of them are below average in appearance, which is statistically correct.
It's about 50-50, right?
But for women, about 80% of men are below average.
Which means that, see, there's an unrealistic beauty standard.
Yes! And it applies to men!
From women! Women think that the average man, well, more than three-quarters of men are below average in appearance.
And as women have gotten more education and higher status and more income and entry into more professions...
What they've done is they have basically, through hypergamy, which is this desire to date up, to marry up, to relationship up, to have a man of higher status and income than yourself, what's happened is, as women have gotten more educated and into more professions, they have simply refused to date down in terms of status.
So, a male doctor will date and marry a female nurse.
And like men, you know what I'm talking about.
You're at the grocery checkout and there's some really attractive girl back there.
You're like, hmm. I may be some super-duper professional, but she is very pretty and appears to have a very nice personality.
Hmm. Right? Whereas a female doctor will not date a male nurse.
The female doctor wants to date the male surgeon.
She wants to aim upwards.
Right? So women have become ridiculously picky.
The woman who has a bachelor's degree is not going to date a guy who's got a high school education.
The woman with the master's degree may not want to date the guy who's got the bachelor's degree.
You understand how this works.
So women have become ridiculously picky, both in terms of looks and status, which is why there's a small number of men who get all the women, and there's a significant chunk of men who get no women at all.
Because the whole point, of course, of feminism was supposed to be equalizing things out.
In other words, feminists should have been lecturing women and say, No!
You should fight your instincts for hypergamy.
Because your instincts for hypergamy is unfair and unjust.
It's going to lead you to be very unhappy because there just aren't enough men to go around.
And when you're one of the high-status, high-value men, and all these women want to date you...
Guess what? You're not going to settle down because you've got too many choices, too many options.
So women are going to end up having to throw the V-bomb at you to try and get you to go out with them, but then you don't want to settle down because there's other women firing the V-cannon at you.
So it just means that women who have not been hammered at their pickiness, the men have been hammered at their pickiness, stop judging women just by their looks.
Be comfortable with fat women.
Be comfortable with ugly women.
But have women been lectured to about hypergamy and say, no, listen, if you want to be the primary income owner, fantastic.
Then the man will stay home with the kids and, you know, there's not much point having a guy stay home with the kids and requiring him also to have a master's degree and whatever, right?
But no. What?
Anyway, and it's also true as well that a huge amount of educational resources is getting wasted.
Like almost half the women who take MBAs don't even end up working in business.
Because what happens? A woman, let's say you're a lawyer and you make $150,000 a year and you're a woman.
Well, you're going to date a senior partner.
You're going to date someone who makes $300,000 a year.
And you're going to get married. And then you're going to get pregnant.
You're going to have kids. But your partner is already making so much money that you don't need to work.
So you end up staying home with the kids.
And society is down one lawyer.
Now I know there's lots of people who think that's a fine thing.
But as far as social resources go, what does it cost society?
A quarter million dollars? Half a million dollars?
I don't know what. To educate and certify a lawyer?
And then the female lawyers end up staying home with kids because they don't need to because their husbands are making so much money because hypergamy.
And then that means there are fewer lawyers around which dries the price of law up for everyone else.
So she talks about Eric Schneiderman.
And when she talks about Eric Schneiderman, well, he was accused of abuse by various women, right?
But this funny thing is these women were lawyers, they were feminists, they were highly educated, highly activists, highly woke Manhattan women who stayed with this guy despite the fact that he allegedly abused them and called them horrible, sometimes racist names.
Why? Why did they date?
See, Schneiderman acts, the women are just, you know, they're the tails on the kite, just floating around, flying around.
No agency. Men act, women are acted upon.
That's the victim status, which goes completely against the whole empowerment thing, right?
Why did women date and stay with this guy?
Because he's very high status.
Right? Now, she talks about Trump.
Huh. So, I won't get into all of this because I've talked about all of this before.
Let me just take a slightly new angle with Trump.
So Trump, from what I've seen lately, he's hired a lot of women.
And those women are being attacked and harassed by leftists.
And that's considered to be just fine.
Sarah Sanders was chased out of a restaurant by the owner, who didn't like her policies because segregation is the new norm in the left.
And not only was she chased out of the restaurant, she went to a restaurant with her family across the street.
They chased her there too and harassed her there too.
Now, with regards to Harvey Weinstein, well, come on.
Women were aiming to trade their own sexual attractiveness for career advancement.
It doesn't justify anything he did, but everybody knows about all of this.
And saying that the problem in Hollywood is a male problem is ridiculous.
Hundreds of women knew all about this.
Women failed to report him.
So, the fact that women have agency in the continuing abuses committed by people like Harvey Weinstein, well, that's just a basic fact.
I mean, when you've got Meryl Streep standing and cheering on child rapist Roman Polanski, I think it's safe to say that the problem of corruption is not just men.
Now, regarding live streaming sexual assaults?
I don't know what she's referring to, other than the fact that in Europe, I have seen some live streams, or I haven't seen them, I've heard of, let me be clear about that.
I've heard that sexual assaults White women have been live-streamed by migrants, by people coming into the country.
So men as a whole are desperately trying to control third-world immigration because it could be argued that there are slightly higher aspects of rape culture in the third world than there is in the modern 21st century West.
So yeah, men are desperately trying to control as a whole third-world immigration, migration, and all the associated rapes and sexual attacks.
But women keep voting for open borders.
So, I don't think you want to look to the patriarchy for these kinds of risks.
Now, she also is really, really upset that there are men's groups.
Really, really angry.
Upset and horrified that there are groups of men who get together to support each other in a difficult environment for men in society.
Now that's just horrible.
I mean, it's just horrible all around.
Because it implies that men have no issues with the way society is being run.
Men have never had any issues.
Men have nothing to talk about.
Men have nothing to complain about.
So men should just stop gathering together, shut up, and just...
what? So, yeah.
There are a couple of issues that men have in modern society.
Probably some of these issues.
In fact, I know some of these issues have been around since the beginning.
So there's a list.
I can post a link to it below.
There's a list of all of the physical attributes that men have developed, evolutionarily speaking, because men need to be geared for battle and need to be geared for far more physical effort to maintain the tribe than women do.
It's the reason why men have 40% more upper body strength Right?
Nature doesn't waste stuff. Nature doesn't just build muscles for no particular reason.
The reason is because men had to do a lot more physical labor, and men had to do a lot more fighting to protect the tribe.
Now that doesn't seem like privilege to me.
Women can always land on their backs, but men often die at the point of a sphere.
Now even in the modern world, men are dying far more often on the job.
Injuries and deaths on the job far higher for men.
Men have many times higher suicide rates.
Men get far longer jail sentences for the same crimes and with the same criminal history as women.
Men overwhelmingly lose custody of their children in court battles.
And there are the problem of fake rape allegations, not just that they exist, but in general women are unpunished, even when they retract.
Men are lied to, sometimes, not often, but sometimes by women, about being the father of their children, and men overwhelmingly die in wartime, and men die many, many years earlier than women.
Men get men's issues, men's health care issues often get far less funding, Then, women's issues just look at the difference in funding and focus on prostate cancer versus breast cancer.
Men, probably a little bit tired of being called pedophiles or latent pedophiles or potential pedophiles if they want to say, work with children.
Boys in school, being taught by overwhelmingly gynocentric teacher systems, boys are genuinely and generally being marked down just for being boys.
So if they take a boy's essay and a girl's essay, they anonymize it.
The boys get far higher marks if the female teachers don't know that they're boys.
So there's a massive amount of prejudice.
So you put all this together and there's a lot more.
But you see, men have no reason to get together, no reason to organize, no reason to support each other.
That's just cold. I mean, that's frigid cold.
That's like Planet Hoth heart cold.
So she's concerned about male violence, you see.
Now, a tiny, tiny percentage of men are, say, rapists and so on.
But this is a very, very slippery and dangerous slope.
The way it works is this.
You see a disparity in outcome between two groups.
It could be races, could be genders, and so on.
You see a disparity in outcome.
And then you say that all of the differences...
Between those two groups' outcomes is the result of prejudice.
Well, that's a big problem.
That's a big, big problem.
So, if a group is doing better and a group is doing worse, that must mean That the group that is doing better is prejudiced against the group that is doing worse.
Now, this is a very, very difficult and slippery slope to go down.
But it's what the left does, right?
They find numerical discrepancies.
They blame it all on racism, sexism, homophobia, whatever it is.
And then they say, we'll close this gap if you just surrender your property rights and other liberties, freedom of speech and so on.
Surrender your rights to us and we'll fix and close this gap.
Now, there is the argument that all differences in groups are the result of prejudice and bigotry and evil bad thing or whatever.
But then there's another one which says, well, if you look at the differences in IQ, there are certain cultural differences, there are environmental differences, there are economic incentives, there are biological differences and so on.
That explains virtually all of these differences.
And then you get to, hey, not only talk about things that are actually true rather than made up fantasy ghosts of evil prejudice everywhere, But also you get to keep your, you know, property rights and freedom of speech.
Seems like a pretty good deal. Speak the truth, find the facts, use the science, and keep your freedom.
That's got my vote. And the other thing, too, is what you do is you take the worst representatives of a particular group and then you say, that's all of them!
Ooh, I don't really think you want to go down that road.
Right. So, I've just regarded the prejudice thing, too, as well.
So the highest incomes, let's say, well, I should say highest incomes in America tend to be among the Jews.
And then the second is East Asians, right?
The Japanese, Chinese, Koreans, and so on.
So, whites kind of in the middle, then Hispanics, and then blacks, right?
Now, this is explainable by reference to IQ and differences in IQ among ethnicities and so on.
But if you say that it's all prejudice, then you face the problem of saying, well, if higher incomes mean...
That you, like, relative to a lower income group means that the higher income group is prejudiced, then you have to explain how East Asians are prejudiced against white people because East Asians make more.
How are Jews prejudiced against East Asians because Jews make even more than East Asians on average?
And how are East Asians also more racist towards Hispanics and blacks than they are to whites because they make more than Hispanics and blacks proportionately?
But of course, none of that complexity ever.
So white racism, white racism, that's it.
Only the whites can be racist, says the person with no capacity to understand what the term racism actually means, which is creating an irrational negative or anti-empirical negative judgment against an ethnic group.
Only whites can be racist.
It's such a racist statement.
I mean, again, you're combing your hair with your shoe, I suppose.
I mean, it's just ridiculous. But if you say, well, we're going to take the worst and most public examples of bad behavior among a particular group, and then we're going to use that to smear the whole group?
Ooh, I don't know that you want to...
Well, first of all, that's wrong and rational.
It's collectivism, right? It's saying, well, I found a bad...
Guy with red hair.
Therefore, all guys with red hair are bad.
I mean, that's ridiculous and prejudiced and bigoted and horrifying and sexist and all that.
But it's a slippery slope.
So in America, it used to be one in three.
Now it's one in four black men will be convicted of a crime and go to prison in their lifetimes.
That is extraordinarily high.
So do you then get to say, well, black males are disproportionately represented in terms of criminality.
Therefore, all blacks.
Carry that, right? You understand, this is wrong.
That's racist. Black kids are twice as likely to be abused as white kids.
Probably has quite a lot to do with why blacks end up going to prison more.
Plus, you know, there's the standard deviation IQ difference between whites and blacks down at the mid to high 80s.
Well, it's kind of a sweet spot for criminality.
It's a huge problem. We need to talk about it.
In terms of scientific facts, rather than just screaming racism all the time and thinking that you're solving any problems, rather than just creating more and more and more problems.
If you're going to talk about male violence, let's talk about wife beating in the third world.
Let's talk about female genital mutilation, in particular cultures and countries.
But no! Now she seems to be fixated on Jewish abuse.
Again, seems kind of odd to me, but...
I could just be hopelessly naive.
So the article continues.
She says, Seen in this indisputably true context, it seems logical to hate men.
Oh, man. Talk about compressing the worst and most clichédly negative aspects of female thought.
Quote thought, right? So...
Let's just say, what does this mean?
Seen from this indisputably true context.
That is really quite something.
So first of all, something is true or it's false.
You can't see it from a particular context that makes it true or makes it false.
Seen in this indisputably true context.
See, context means that it's tough to figure out what's true and what's false.
You know, Rashomon style, like that old Japanese story about a robber.
Stealing from a family in the woods.
Seen in this indisputably true context.
So it's a particular view of a particular context, but it's indisputably true.
You can't have it all ways from Sunday.
Ah, you're not Stormy Daniels.
Seen in this indisput...
And also, the word indisputably is not an argument.
It's not an argument.
It seems logical to hate men.
See, here's the thing.
Oh, professor. Seems logical.
You put these two things together, and this is kind of what a lot of people think is the problem with female approaches to truth, reason, and facts.
It seems logical.
Yeah. See, logic is not something that seems or doesn't seem.
Logic is something you prove or you don't prove.
You've got your premises, you've got your arguments, you've got your syllogisms, you've got your conclusions, you've got a whole rigmarole.
I've got a whole book. I've got this whole book called The Art of the Argument, which you can get at theartoftheargument.com.
You can also get it on Audible.
It's called The Art of the Argument.
It goes into great detail about how to prove things, what it means to establish the truth.
My book is not...
Seems logical. Feels true.
Just say indisputably true and you've made your case.
Seems logical to hate men.
Can you imagine?
Can you imagine?
One out of four black males are going to go to prison because they committed a crime and were convicted of it.
And a serious one if they're going to prison.
So if you believe that, would you argue?
Seems logical to hate this group.
Horrendous. But you see, this is how we know that there's no such thing as patriarchy and male privilege.
Because try taking this woman's article and replacing men, and of course she means white men, and Jews apparently, a lot.
But if you put any other group in, put in Muslims, put in gays, put in women, put in blacks, put in any other group, and you'd never get it published.
And if you did get it published somewhere, the entire...
Publishing outlet and you, I mean, protests, and so the fact that you can say all of this stuff about men is indisputable proof, right?
I mean, I actually have made an argument here.
Doesn't just seem logical to hate this falsehood, but this is how you know there's no such thing as patriarchy, right?
You know the old thing that says, if you want to know who rules over you, look at who you're not allowed to criticize.
Well, the fact that she can write and publish something like this, and the outlet, the Washington Post, right, the outlet and all of that seem to be chugging along just fine, and People take it as something interesting to be discussed.
Well, that tells you that there's no such thing as patriarchy in any way, shape, or form.
It seems and feels like it's indisputably true when seen from this context.
So, she goes on to say, I can't lie.
Well, it could be true because I guess she believes this.
And this is one of the things that's just kind of boring about these collectivists, these anti-rationalists, these leftists.
They're boring because they just never seem to encounter opposing thought.
They never seem to have to wrestle with opposing debates, right?
They just screech and scream and have an echo chamber and reinforce each other's prejudice and bigotry and sexism and so on.
And it's just, it feels true because they just don't expose themselves to alternative points of view.
I remember Lindsay Shepard.
It was at Wilford Laurier. She played in one of...
She was a TA. She played in her classes something from Jordan Peterson that was open to discussion.
And they came down on her own ton of bricks.
She's suing them now. And that's like a tiny sliver of a reasonable man's explanation for something that goes outside the leftist narrative.
And they've got to shut it down, right?
The non-leftist knows shut it down, right?
And that's boring. I mean, it makes boring people.
It makes hysterical people.
Because when you don't season your perspective with a wide variety of arguments, you become very boring.
And you become very hysterical.
And you become absolutely certain in things that are absolutely false.
That's why you need the echo chamber.
And because you have a fundamental inability to deal with opposing arguments, you can't have them around you.
Because it becomes emotional.
Those arguments feel wrong.
They feel evil. I feel like you're a Nazi.
Now, those of us who aren't on the left, we're constantly having to wrestle with all these opposing viewpoints because they're everywhere.
So we're just seasoned and...
More curious and more interested and more engaged.
You know, all that kind of stuff. So, I'm not going to do this for every syllable.
She goes on to say, I can't lie, I've always had a soft spot for the radical feminist smackdown for naming the problem in no uncertain terms.
I've rankled at the, but we don't hate men, protestations of generations of would-be feminists and found the, men are not the problem, this system is obfuscation, too precious by half.
I'm sorry, I shouldn't laugh.
So I think at this point in our examination of this text, we can sit back in the easy chair of certainty and resign ourselves to the basic fact that this professor is not going to make any arguments at all.
Not going to make any arguments at all.
Because naming the problem in no uncertain terms, I've rankled at this particular perspective.
It's a problem. I don't like these protestations.
And this obfuscation is too precious by half.
Going to give us any data at all?
Anything? Any arguments whatsoever, any logical problems you find with the opposing argument or do you just wave the magic wand called the position that I have now mischaracterized I can call false because its obfuscation is too precious by half.
But I mean in seriousness, can you imagine this woman who complains about sexism?
Can you imagine being a male in her class?
Because projection is dangerous and powerful.
So she goes on to say, but of course the criticisms of this blanket condemnation of men from transnational feminists who decry such glib universalism to U.S. women of color who demand an intersectional perspective are mostly on the mark.
These critics rightly insist on an analysis of male power as institutional, not narrowly personal or individual or biologically based in male bodies.
Growing movements to challenge masculinity built on domination and violence and to engage boys and men in feminism are both gratifying and necessary.
Please continue. I don't know what she's saying.
It's just like a word salad of vaguely sinister intent.
Okay, look. I mean, this idea that the world is run by male violence and women are just sort of helpless leaves on the stream, the bloody stream of male violence and so on.
Come on. Come on.
First of all, women as a whole rely.
Certainly dependent women, women who are dependent on the state, which is a lot of women these days, right?
Single moms and The women who work for the government, and women are significantly over-represented in government jobs, certain categories in particular, women rely on male violence.
Why? Because the modern state exists pretty much after women got the vote.
Very, very quickly, the modern state exists to take money from men and give it to women.
And it's not like the women are going up and grabbing money and facing a beatdown.
What happens is the women vote for policies that generally transfer money from men to women, right?
So you get no default divorce, where the woman gets alimony and child support, you've got the welfare state, you've got socialized health care, which is generally women consume health care resources far more than men do, and perhaps that's one reason why they live longer.
But the modern state in the West is, to a large degree, The transfer of resources, of money and energies and all that, from men to women.
Now, how is that enforced?
Well, it's enforced through the tax system.
It's enforced through the monopoly private bank called the Fed that the government licenses to control the currency.
So it's enforced by The taxes that are collected to pay off government bonds when they come due.
It's enforced by the government keeping a monopoly on currency, going into debt, selling the future of children in order what?
To take resources in general from men and give those resources to women.
So it's kind of tough when you say, well, patriarchal violence is terrible.
But basically, we as women rely on patriarchal violence to forcibly extract resources from men and give it to us.
So you kind of got to choose one.
If patriarchal violence is really bad, then you should be...
Libertarians. You should be voluntarists.
You should be anarcho-capitalists.
And you should say, well, you know, gosh, male violence is really bad.
So given that forcible transfers of resources and money in society are enacted by an overwhelmingly male police force going to threaten people with jail if they don't pay their taxes, well, we better stop all this redistribution because this redistribution is enforced by male violence.
Male violence is bad.
Therefore, all the resources are bad, they're wrong, they're unjustly transferred.
They're transferred through male violence, through threats, through jail, where there is kind of a rape culture against men, by the way, which is joked about constantly because men have all the power, which is why you can joke about men being raped, but you can't joke about women being raped, and of course you should joke about nobody being raped.
So, yeah.
Male patriarchal violence is really terrible.
Unless that male patriarchal violence is used to transfer resources by force at the point of a gun from men to women.
And then, well, it's social justice, so don't tell me about how much you hate male violence when so many women rely on male violence to get their resources.
As has been the case a lot of times through history.
Now, women are just...
They have no agency, right?
Men act, women just float along and react and try to survive and have no idea how, right?
Men are flesh, women are ghosts.
And this is...
Who abuses children the most?
Women. Now, part of that, of course, is because women around children more, but so what?
That's never an excuse for men.
A man can't say, well...
I beat up this women because I'm just around women a lot.
So... It's gonna happen!
You wouldn't accept that.
So who is it who hits children more?
Women. Who is it who verbally abuses children more?
Women. So...
Is it worse to hit an adult woman who can go to the police, who can get you thrown in jail, who's independent, who can leave, who have all these resources, shelters and other places to take care of her, or is it worse for a woman to hit a child and the child can't call anyone, can't leave, can't get out, has no independence, no resources, no shelters to go to, nothing.
It's still legal to hit children in many Western countries.
And who's doing most of that heading?
It's women. Particularly when you count the single mom phenomenon, right?
Well, there's not even a man around to discipline.
So... But you see, it's all just male violence.
The fact that women abuse children, and men do too, don't get me wrong, but women have the edge on this.
The fact that women abuse children is important.
Because that's part of the whole cycle of violence.
And you can go to thebombinthebrain.com for more details about all of this.
So yeah, women are violent.
And women physically attack men about as often as men physically attack women.
So it's about 50-50 when it comes to domestic abuse.
So how is all of this male violence to be understood in the context of the fact that, well, I think I've made the case.
Now, as far as all of this male patriarchy goes, men are in control of everything, do you know that the FBI didn't even classify the possibility that men could be raped until a few years ago?
That rape was forcible knowledge of a woman.
And so, where's all this patriarchy?
Now, this is generally, being raped refers to a man raping another man, but there's something called forced to penetrate, where men are raped by women.
Because the penis can become hard under stress, under fear, under anxiety, under panic.
And some women have orgasms when they're raped.
That doesn't make rape right or moral.
And some men will get hard-ons when they're raped by women.
That doesn't make that rape fine.
And some proportion, and it's not insignificant, some proportion of pedophiles are women and so on.
But let's just focus on men as a whole.
Despite the fact that men developed labor-saving devices for women before they developed life-saving devices for men.
In other words, washers and dryers and all of this were developed for women before basic air protection and masks and circulation of air were developed for, say, male minors.
So she goes on to say, but this recognition of the complexity of male domination, how different it can be in different parts of the world, how racism shapes it, should not, must not mean we forget some universal facts.
Ah. Gonna get some facts now.
Alright. Pretty much everywhere in the world this is true.
Women experience sexual violence and the threat of that violence permeates our choices big and small.
Now that is true. Sorry, women do experience threats of sexual violence in the world.
And there are some cultures where it happens a whole lot more than others.
And failing to differentiate and find the causes of those differences among cultures is pretty important.
There are some places in the world, many places in the world, where a married woman has no right to say no to sex from her husband.
I wonder if we could start talking about those cultures and the challenge that bringing those cultures into the West is going to bring.
Now, men also are under threat of violence.
Men are under threat of violence if they don't pay their taxes.
Men are under threat of violence if there's a draft and they have to go to war.
Men are under threat of violence from other men and sometimes from women.
Men are under threat of violence if they don't pay...
Sometimes outrageous levels of alimony and child support.
Men are under threat of violence because those bills will continue to accumulate even when the men are in prison for failing to pay those outrageous bills.
Those bills will continue to accumulate and then the man has to get out, pay even bigger bills, now having a criminal record for failure to pay alimony or child support, and so men face threat of violence in that as well.
Men get thrown in prison more and face threat of violence there as well.
Saying that only women face threats of violence is false.
And of course, boys face threats of violence primarily from women, from being hit, beaten, spanked, verbally abused, and so on.
Yeah, violence is a big problem, and we should really, really talk about it.
The violence of the state, the violence of parenting, these all should be discussed.
The violence that is often justified by religions.
You know, if you really want to look at institutionalized violence, what you want to do is you want to look at particular religious texts around the world which say you have no moral obligations to people outside your own religions.
That yes, you can rape...
Women who aren't part of this particular religion, these people who aren't part of this particular religion, well, they're not really human, and you can do whatever you want.
You can lie, you can cheat, you can rape, you can rob, you can steal.
That is institutionalized discrimination, sexism, racism, and violence.
It's fundamentalist religious bigotry.
You didn't talk about that.
No! Because it's just all men.
All men. Also, this is a fundamental question, too.
If men are so terrible, what kind of moms do they have?
If men hate women, what kind of moms did they have?
You know, if you love your mother, you can't end up hating women as a whole.
If you love your father and you are loved by your father and you have a great relationship with your father, you can't just end up hating men as a whole.
These people, they're not talking about, in my opinion, they're not talking about the world.
They're not talking about men. They're not talking about women.
They're talking about their own lives. All men are terrible.
Okay, you had a shitty father.
I'm sorry about that. I really am.
I really am. But now you're being terrible in turn.
And you don't solve having a shitty father by attacking and abusing all men as a whole.
Because that's just amplifying the evil that you suffered rather than dealing with it in a mature and honorable way.
Who raised these terrible, violent, abusive men?
Who raised them? Who gave them the values that have them grow up to be like this?
I mean, it's no secret that a lot of pedophiles were sexually abused and or treated in other horrible ways, but I think in particular sexually abused.
It's not that big a secret that most pedophiles, most adult pedophiles, were sexually abused as children.
Okay? So who's responsible for protecting children?
The parents. And the parent who's home the most, the parent who has the most access and control over the children's environment, is the one most responsible for keeping them safe.
And that's more moms than fathers.
And so if your child is sexually abused on your watch, then you have some causality in the matter.
Because it's your job to protect your child.
If you fail to protect your child and your child grows up to be a pedophile or whatever, you have some causality in it.
I'm not saying you should be thrown in jail necessarily alongside him, but you have some causality in it.
And prevention is by far better than cure.
So if there's a man who grows up hating women, Was he raised by a brutal, violent, evil, narcissistic mother?
Now, it's not just or fair for him to hate women because he had a terrible mom.
That's wrong, too. That's amplifying the evil.
But there's causality in the matter.
There's causality in the matter.
Who raises these men? Men are terrible.
They have grown like some Greek god as magic adults with no influence from their moms, from female daycare teachers, from female teachers, from anyone.
I mean, what kind of world does your average son of a single mother grow up in?
Well, single mom. Around, there's lots of single moms because there's not a lot of functional two-parent households around those kinds of neighborhoods.
Trust me, I know. So, you got a single mom who's in charge.
Everywhere around you, you see a matriarchy with almost no fathers.
Then you go to school. You go to daycare.
And in daycare, it's all women.
And then you go to school, a lot of times it's all women.
And then you're told, but it's a patriarchy.
Sexual violence is terrible, particularly in some places in the world.
Here's a quote. In South Africa, where four out of ten women say their first sexual experience was rape, the polygamist president, Jacob Zuma, believes, quote, you cannot just leave a woman if she is ready, end quote.
To deny such a woman's sex would be, quote, tantamount to rape, he told the judge.
In his 2006 rape trial, he was acquitted.
Just look at the numbers.
I'll put a link below.
Look at the numbers of incidents in rape, say, Botswana versus, say, Japan or Canada.
And if you think this is unrelated to ethnicity entirely, then think again.
So... Just to kind of put this in perspective, if you're going to start talking about violence against women, you would want to start talking in particular in the third world.
But instead, you go to Manhattan and Hollywood.
Well, that seems kind of prejudicial.
You want to start with the greatest data, where the greatest incidents of rapes are.
So Sweden, almost no rape.
Now, second highest rape rates...
In the world. Why? Well, because of their migrant policy, because they're allowing lots of third-worlders to come in, and those third-worlders have particular religious and cultural contacts in terms of where they're coming from.
Now, that could be considered just a little bit more of a rape culture than what's been going on in Sweden as a whole over the past, well, pretty much 800 years since Sweden began.
So you'd say, oh, wow, there's violence against women.
Let's start where it's the greatest.
Because if you really cared about that, that's why you'd start to talk.
You'd say, well, you know, boy, what happened with Eric Schneiderman and the abuse he's accused of?
Yeah, that was terrible stuff, but these were adult women who had choices and options and chose to stay with him.
How about little girls in South Africa who are raped?
40% of them say that their first sexual experience is that of being raped.
Where do you start with? Where do you lead with?
Are you really interested in the problem or is it something else that's going on entirely?
The article continues.
In addition, male violence is not restricted to intimate partner attacks or sexual assault, but plagues us in the form of terrorism and mass gun violence.
Yes, terrorism and mass gun violence.
Well, it is certainly true.
Shooters tend to be men.
Terrorists tend to be men.
Absolutely. Huge problem.
And we would assume, of course, let's just say in the West, That this kind of gun violence should have been going down as more of these evil patriarchs have been taken out of the family.
In other words, families with traditional male patriarchs, right, they should have the highest incidence of gun shootings and this kind of stuff, but they don't.
Where do the gun shooters come from?
Well, the overwhelming majority of the school shooters in particular come from single mother households.
Well, how is that possible?
Because, you see, it's the presence of patriarchy that triggers all of this violence, so when you have no father around, it should be much better.
Kids should grow up more peaceful and more happy and more positive and so on, but quite the opposite of true.
It's true. If you want to know one of the biggest single predictors of whether a child is going to grow up to be violent, to be a rapist, to be a criminal, to be aggressive, to be a shooter, well, you look at whether he was raised by a single mom.
I mean, these are facts. Now, these are facts that go against a particular narrative of misandry, but facts nonetheless.
Now, the other thing, too, is that there's no aspect of personality that isn't influenced by genetics, and aggression is one of those as well.
So, in a particular study that I've talked about, you should really listen to the audiobook that I read of...
Lloyd DeMoss' The Origins of War and Child Abuse, but there are particular studies that show that boys with a particular gene, if they're not abused, they grow up relatively okay.
If they are abused, almost all of them will grow up to be criminals.
So the protection of children is the most important thing when it comes to breaking the cycle of violence.
The protection of children is the single most important factor in breaking the cycle of violence.
But protecting children means criticizing moms.
There are dads out there too, and men, and I'm not saying it solely, but we've already been criticizing the dads and the patriarchy for like a hundred years now.
So it's okay.
You know, maybe we could just do one year of criticizing the moms for exposing the kids to violence, for exposing the kids to sexual predators, for exposing the kids to abuse, for abusing the kids themselves.
Maybe we can just do one year out of the 100.
150, really.
Maybe we can just do one. Maybe 1% criticizing moms as opposed to just forever begging on dads.
Just maybe. But of course, that's not going to happen because this is not about protecting or helping people or stopping the cycle of violence.
Here's another thing too. Violence has a genetic component.
And so if women really, really want to help the world become less violent, not only should they stop taking government money, of course, that's blood money, that's violence money, Not only should they stop spanking, hitting, yelling at, and abusing their kids, not only should they stop divorcing their husbands en masse, because growing up without a father is terrible for children, but they should also stop having children with violent men!
Because violence has a genetic component.
It means if you keep banging violent men, you keep setting fire, you put another log on the fire that is burning down the world.
Stop having sex with violent men.
And we also know, with regards to single moms, the children of single moms are many, many, many times, dozens of times more likely to be abused if there is an unrelated father in the house.
You know, we're still mammals, right?
You know what happens when... A new lion comes and takes over the bride that kills all the kids from the existing fathers, right?
And so there's this, I don't know how it works, but there's some biological connection that protects children from abuse if the father is their father.
If there's another man in the household, the children are many, many, many times, in some cases over 30 times, 30 times, not 30%, 30 times more likely to be abused.
So, find a peaceful, positive, benevolent, nice, good man, have children with him, stay with him, and your children will be very safe.
They will be in the safest conceivable, most peaceful conceivable environment.
And that's how you break the cycle of violence.
But that means giving women agency in the cycle of violence and not having these fainting couch, smelling salt Victorian, oh Lord, kind of stuff.
I mean, they have to then be recognized as a group that has agency, as a gender who has agency, who has a huge amount to do.
That doesn't involve begging, nagging, and haranguing men for stuff, but is actually empowering.
I want to empower women.
I have a wonderful wife.
I have a wonderful daughter. I don't want her to grow up and be infected with this passivity, with this non-agency, with, oh, there's this terrible, scary, penis-clanging patriarchy that's just going to smash you down.
No, women should have agency.
There's so much that women can do to help the world become a better place.
But it does mean some self-criticism, and it does mean standing up to other women who are making bad decisions, and it does mean actually doing the kind of things that good men have been doing for the last 10,000 years, which has resulted in this cozy little thing we call civilization.
I want to empower women, and this woman wants to disempower women.
Crazy stuff. She says, women are underrepresented in higher wage jobs, local and federal government, business, educational leadership, etc.
Now, that's interesting.
Underrepresented. You know, I'm underrepresented in hair commercials.
I don't know what the phrase underrepresented means.
I mean, given that it's still a relatively free market.
Women are...
Represented as much as they want to be.
I mean, very few people, if any, are going to say, well, I'm not going to hire a woman.
And there's lots of affirmative action for women and so on.
So what does it mean, underrepresented?
Women are underrepresented in prison, based upon, right?
Women are overrepresented in higher education because they've displaced men sometimes to the point where it's 60-65% women.
Well, of course, that's a benefit, right?
So being overrepresented in a benefit is great.
Being underrepresented in a benefit is tragic inequality.
I should laugh again.
Oh my god. What does it mean?
Women are underrepresented.
God, I don't know. I mean, I don't know much about this woman's background.
But it takes a woman without a commitment to her children to think that women can compete on an even playing field with men.
Look, I've been a stay-at-home dad now for nine years.
Nine and a half years, in fact.
And I have one daughter.
And it's more than a full-time job.
It's much more than a full-time job.
And so if you are committed to actually being a good parent, spending time with your children, raising your children, then you aren't going to be able to go and compete for the 70-hour-a-week jobs And travel and nights and weekends and you just won't be able to.
Because you can be a high-powered executive or you can be a good parent.
I mean, particularly for women.
You can't be both. Now, you can say as a woman, well, I'm going to go back to work one week after.
I give birth and I'm going to drop my kid in daycare and I'm going to...
Pump my breast milk through a machine in the corporate toilet, and you can do all that kind of crap, and yeah, you're just being a terrible mom.
You're just being a terrible mom.
Motherhood is not something that can just be replaced by some low-rent worker, right?
I've made this analogy before, but imagine, as a man, it's your 10th wedding anniversary, and you say to your wife, yeah, let's go out for dinner, Friday.
I've got to go out for a wonderful, lovely dinner.
And then you hire some minimum wage foreigner who barely speaks English to go out with your wife and say, sorry, but you know, I'm interchangeable.
Just go out with this guy.
I'm sure he'll be nice.
Well, she'd say, well, no, I don't want to go out with some minimum wage stranger.
I want to go out with you, your own husband.
She'd be really upset and offended. Or, even worse, if it's the 10th wedding anniversary and you say to your wife, hey, honey, I know that you want to come out for dinner with me to this wonderful restaurant, we'll go dancing and so on, but I've hired this woman at minimum wage to take your place.
And so I'm going to go out for dinner with her and then go dancing with her.
And your wife would be like incensed and enraged.
You think you can replace me with some minimum wage worker?
I'm your wife! It's the same thing, honey.
It's the same thing with motherhood.
You think you can just dump your kid in a daycare and your kid, your baby, who desperately needs you and wants to snuggle and wants to breastfeed and wants to get the skin-on-skin contact and the eye contact that builds basic humanity and empathy and a peaceful future?
You think you can just dump that kid in some institution and some You know, it takes 10 minutes to properly change and clean a diaper.
I know. I've done my share.
More than my share. Well, no, there's no such thing as more than my share.
Let me not fall into that same trap.
I've done a lot. And if you've got a daycare worker taking care of six babies, well, they're going to poop every hour.
So she's just going from diaper to diaper, cleaning things up, probably doing not a great job transferring fecal matter and associated bacteria often from baby to baby.
Kids get sick. Kids, right?
Oh, it's terrible. It's terrible.
You can be a high-powered executive or you can be a good mom.
You can't be both. And so here's the thing.
And there's this weird thing where I say, well, women aren't being paid in these big jobs so they're making less money.
And she gets to this, right?
So the only way to even approach equality is to say to women, don't have children.
Hey, look, we've achieved something close to equality.
And that's it for our culture and our civilization.
And 150 years, I'm sorry, 150,000 years of human evolution that has resulted in who we are now is gone in one generation because we won some sort of magic equality.
Wage inequality continues to permeate every economy and almost every industry.
My God. They never say women are underrepresented in getting killed or injured on the job, right?
Now, here we go. See, they always talk about wages.
They don't talk about income.
They talk about wages, not income, right?
So she goes on to say, women continue to provide far higher rates of unpaid labor in the home, e.g.
child care, elder care, care for disabled individuals, housework, and food provision.
Wow. Unpaid labor.
Unpaid? Oh, my God.
What are you talking about?
If you're staying home...
Taking care of a child.
Who's paying your bills?
Unpaid! Just try it.
Try this. Try having a child, staying home, and just waiting for money to magically pile up in your bank account.
See, children are an expense.
Very expensive. It's double, right?
They acquire more resources.
You've got your cribs, you've got your mobiles, you've got your diapers, you've got your, like, all this stuff, right?
So not only are babies an expense in that way, and you need usually a bigger place and so on, but they're also an expense in that they take every waking hour and many of your sleeping hours to take care of, particularly for the first year or so.
So, what does it mean?
It's impossible for a mother to be unpaid!
Unless she's got some massive savings or her parents, right?
It's impossible for a mother to be unpaid.
You know what happens to unpaid mothers?
They and their babies will starve to death.
Because they're taking care of their babies, not out there making money.
So this is just basic economics.
So when she says, here she says, women continue to provide far higher rates of unpaid labor in the home.
So child care. Let's just take care of child care, right?
So who's paying the bills?
Who's paying for the food? Who's paying for the health care?
Who's paying for the housing?
Who's paying? Who's paying?
Can't be unpaid, otherwise everyone would starve to death.
Who's paying? Who's paying?
Men. Now, if she has a husband, then the husband is paying.
And if she doesn't have a husband, in general, the male taxpayers are paying.
It's not unpaid labor.
I mean, it's interesting. If you were to take this supposed wage gap and change it to an income gap, then what you need to do is you need to calculate for women how much money they're receiving in terms of the welfare state, in terms of free health care.
In terms of alimony, in terms of palimony, in terms of child support, in terms of disproportionate old age pensions, which are paid out more to women than men, because women live longer and women contribute far less than men, to old age pensions.
So it would be interesting to do those numbers, and if somebody out there wants to do that and send them in, I'd be happy to look at them, maybe make a presentation, but it'd be interesting to see those numbers.
Because it seems to me that women have a lot of resources.
I mean, I've said this before.
I could just go to a mall and count the number of stores dedicated to men and the number of stores dedicated to women.
Malls are entirely to do with women, because even the odd computer store in there is basically...
It's either a Mac store, which is for women, or it's for men to hang out while the women are spending their money elsewhere in the store on things that make no sense to me whatsoever, but women apparently seem to like.
Like impossibly thin dresses and...
Well...
Handbags and shoes, you know, this kind of stuff, right?
It's junk, for the most part.
I mean, there's some stuff about it that's cool, but mostly it's junk.
And so, yeah. I mean, for all these women who are underpaid and have no money and so on, boy, there seems to be, you just turn on the TV during the day.
Not a lot of Best Buy ads, right?
I mean, it's a lot of stuff for women.
Women control over 80% of household spending.
They're not making 80% of household spending, which means there's a massive transfer of resources, both voluntary and involuntary, right?
Through marriage or through the welfare state or other coercive government transfer schemes.
Huge resource transfer for men to women.
But you see, apparently women are underpaid.
But no, you've got to calculate the sum total.
You know, if I win the lottery and keep my job, I don't know.
I can just count my salary, or I can count my total resources.
She goes on to say, women have less access to education, particularly at the higher levels.
Women have lower rates of property ownership.
Now, she's not talking, I assume, about the West, because women have ridiculous access to higher education, which generally means economically useless higher indoctrination, but as a whole, no, this is just basic, I don't know.
This fantasy of infinite resources, which is largely brought about by fiat currency, and this fantasy of infinite resources, why wouldn't you be kind?
You've got infinite resources, so the only reason you'd withhold any of those infinite resources from any group is because you're bigoted.
So, this idea that women have less access to education, I assume she means in the third world, well, of course they do.
And that's inevitable. Why?
Because those societies and cultures want to continue, and people like having children, and nature has so designed it.
If you want to look at a sexist, you could talk about Mother Nature.
Mother Nature has so designed it that women are disabled in general through pregnancy, have difficult childbirths, and then must breastfeed for at least 18 months, preferably to two years.
And you're going to have a whole bunch of kids, right?
So why on earth would you bother educating a woman who's going to be home taking care of children?
Like, let's say you live in a village.
You live in a village, right? You need a doctor.
You live in a village, you need a doctor.
I guess unless it's Juno, in which case you can fly people out.
But anyway, you live in a village, somewhere in the third world, you need a doctor.
So you have a choice. You can educate a man or you can educate a woman.
Now, if you educate a woman, what's going to happen?
She's going to get married. Most likely she's going to get pregnant and she's just going to be unavailable to provide your healthcare services.
So you spent the same amount of money to educate a woman...
As you would have to educate a man on what happens, you have no doctor.
Good choice, everyone!
Now, for the sake of equality, you have no healthcare.
You have no doctor.
So what do you do? You educate the man!
Because the man isn't going to be pregnant.
He's not going to be breastfeeding.
He's not going to be doing all of that stuff.
So of course you educate the man.
Because the man can actually do the job while the woman is doing the equally important job of actually having children and continuing the civilization and the culture.
So of course women have less access to education.
I mean, it shows how ridiculously out of touch these privileged people are.
I mean, she should go to some third world village and say, oh no, you shouldn't educate the man to be a doctor, you should educate the woman to be a doctor.
And maybe she convinces them to do that, and then there's no health care, and people die.
They die because they don't have access to health care because the woman who's the doctor is not available.
I guess she doesn't care about the lives of people in the third world.
I kind of do. I'd like them, really, really like people in the third world, poor countries.
I'd really, really like to have them have access to health care.
I think that's kind of important and kind of nice because I can put myself in their shoes and say, okay, well, if I lived in some village in the third world, I'd want a male doctor because the female doctor will be mostly unavailable.
I guess this is lack of empathy for the poor, lack of empathy for people who have a different ethnicity, lack of people, lack of empathy for people who have fewer freedoms.
Now, if you want more women to be doctors, fine.
Then advocate for free market policies, which is the best and fastest way to raise people out of poverty.
And then they can afford to have backup doctors.
They can afford to have spare doctors.
They can afford to have women be doctors.
Because they already have enough male doctors who can continue.
And you see this in England, in the NHS. Male doctors work significantly more than female doctors.
Now, if you have a rich country, of course that's all falling apart now, but you can't afford to indulge in that kind of stuff if you have a lot of wealth.
But if you don't, you can't.
Don't you care about poor people's access to health care?
It's... So she goes on to say, the list goes on, it varies by country, but these global realities of women's economic, political, social and sexual vulnerabilities are, well, real.
Indeed, the nations in which these inequalities have been radically minimized, e.g.
Iceland, are those in which deliberate effort has been made to both own up to gender disparities and to address them directly and concretely.
Interesting. So, Iceland.
Iceland is considered to be good.
Now, what she means by this in general is the government points guns at people who want to make their own free choices with their persons and property.
That's what she means. But here's something interesting too.
So she says Iceland is a good example of equality.
And when you aim for this radical egalitarianism at the expense of freedom, it's at the expense of freedom, you understand.
So it's easy. Justice means equality of opportunity and equality under the law.
Social justice means equality of outcome, which means tyranny of the law.
Pointing guns at people who are making free choices that result in things you don't like.
So she says Iceland is a really, really great example, except that Iceland's fertility rate is crashing.
Iceland's fertility rates recently were at the lowest record, the lowest rate Since records began in 1853.
So you need 2.1 just to maintain, not to grow, just to maintain your society.
And they're way below that, 1.75 children per woman.
And that's the lowest since records began in 1853.
And the average age that a young woman now, or not young even that, the average age that a woman has a child now is 27.
It was 22 at first birth in the 1980s.
It's gone up by half a decade in a couple of decades.
So, yeah, you can have this radical equality, which means a tyrannical government, violations of persons and property all over the place, women having children later having fewer children and dying out in couple generations.
Again, seems like a bit of a high price to pay, not just in terms of your basic freedoms, but in terms of the continuation of your culture, right?
And this is the reality, right?
This was the great bait and switch.
White Western women were told, you're having too many children, zero population growth, bad for the environment, and then it's like, oh, sorry, you don't have enough kids now.
We have to import everyone from the third world.
I mean, why people are more angry about this is incomprehensible to me.
So, she goes on to say, so in this moment, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity...
I don't even know what to say.
The laws are pro-women.
Gynocentric laws are all over the place.
Laws favoring women are everywhere.
But anyway, in her fantasy world, here in the land of legislatively legitimated toxic masculinity, is it really so illogical to hate men?
Now, it's interesting because I did think about the relationships that this woman has to men as a whole, and male expertise and male hard work and so on.
Every now and then in Canada, there are these ice storms that take down power lines all over the place.
And I've played this game with my daughter when we're driving around.
It's like, hey, let's spot the women who are fixing the power lines.
We have yet to see one.
And so this woman is sitting in a building that is built, invented and built by men in comfortable air conditioning that is invented and built and maintained by men.
On land that was originally cleared and domesticated by men, turning on a tap and getting water from sewage systems and water systems invented and built and maintained by men.
And she's in a university that was originally founded and built and given legitimacy by the brilliance and expertise of men.
And she's typing on a keyboard, invented and built by a man in general, on a computer system, on a whole internet system that was built and invented by men.
And she's using all this to say that masculinity is toxic.
I don't even know what to say.
I mean, that's... How about a day of gratitude for men?
And the suffering that they went through to build civilization.
Can we get any of that?
No. A woman who's been given enormous gifts who remains dissatisfied and angry.
Boy, I never heard that cliche before.
Have you? Maybe you have. Let me know in the comments below.
She goes on to say, For all the power of hashtag MeToo and hashtag Time's Up and the women's marches, only relatively few men have been called to task.
And I've yet to see a mass wave of prosecutions or even serious recognition of wrongdoing.
On the contrary, cries of witch hunt and the plotted resurrection of celebrity offenders came quick on the heels of the outcry over endemic sexual harassment and violence.
But we're not supposed to hate them because hashtag not all men.
I love Michelle Obama as much as the next woman, but when they have gone low for all of human history, maybe it's time for us to go all Thelma and Louise and Foxy Brown on their collective butts.
So I think she's talking about beating and killing.
Because that apparently is the way that you solve things.
And this Michelle Obama, like that's just kind of a cliche that feminists love Michelle Obama.
But this is sort of the problem.
So Michelle Obama remains married to a man who dropped 100,000 bombs on men, women and children in the Middle East.
100,000 bombs.
And who gave huge amounts of money to a horrible patriarchy in Iran and all of this.
I mean, what can you even say?
What can you even say? This Michelle Obama, who was great friends with Hillary Clinton, who put U.S. security enormously at risk by exposing classified secrets to governments around the world, some of whom provably accessed that information and that data.
And she's also great friends with Hillary Clinton, who, along with Barack Obama, the husband of Michelle Obama, helped to destabilize and destroy Syria and Libya Thus creating huge problems for women in particular, but there's also men being sold in slave markets in Libya now for the first time in quite some time.
Michelle Obama's husband, Barack Obama, refused to enforce immigration law and created the DACA mess.
And what that did was, of course, make it highly profitable through the welfare state, which is, again, resources being taken by male violence from men and given to women because patriarchy.
And Barack Obama created a huge incentive for women, in particular, with children to attempt to cross the U.S. border.
And 80% of those women are getting raped along the way.
80% of those women are getting raped along the way.
I would imagine it's higher, but that's what's been established.
So, yeah, the wife of a guy who dropped bombs on, well, including women and children in the Middle East, and who's friends with Hillary Clinton, who helped destroy...
Libya and Syria and the attendant horrors that women and children have gone through there, and men of course as well, and who has created an environment where this human trafficking along the border is huge and women get raped along the way.
But she's got no problem. She loves, loves Michelle Obama.
Loves Michelle Obama.
Again, this is, I don't even know what to say.
I mean, this is tragically terrible.
Little analysis. She goes on to say, Dismissal.
We're supposed to feel more empathy for your fear of being called a harasser than we are for the women harassed.
We are told he's with us and hashtag not him, but truly, if he were with us, wouldn't this all have ended a long time ago?
If he really were with us, wouldn't he reckon that one good way to change structural violence and inequity would be to refuse the power that comes with it?
Now, who tells women that?
Like, I saw this, I don't know, some commercial or something on...
Online where the girl says, well, they all told me I couldn't play rugby.
And it's like, nobody says that to girls.
Nobody says that to girls at all.
Right? And now, it is true that women generally score higher, as I mentioned before, one of the big five personality traits.
Is, you know, nice and getting along with people and being conciliatory and so on.
And yeah, women score higher on that.
And that's true around the world. That's true across cultures and so on.
Agreeableness is the trait.
But that's not... So because...
There's this radical, fanatical, fundamentalist anti-science agenda on the left.
I mean, they get mad at conservatives being skeptical about global warming, but then they adamantly reject differences in brain size between ethnicities, differences between men and women physically, and differences between men and women intellectually.
At the very highest levels of IQ, there are virtually no women.
There are men, but there are virtually no women.
That's just the way things are.
And they will, of course, say, well, it's all to do with environment.
But how do they know? They don't know.
It's just an article of faith.
It's a fundamentalist. It's a religion, basically, because you have...
I mean, to have a religion, or to have a perspective which says, we are going to name all the evil in the world after man, patriarchy, and we're going to name all the good things after women, feminism, when that's so fundamentally bigoted and sexist and horrible, That to not notice it is a supreme act of dissociative will.
So yeah, this idea that, well, women can't ever get angry or anything like that.
Well, I don't know.
I don't know. I mean, it just doesn't...
I've never heard that and I don't believe it.
And I've never seen that in my life.
So here's the money shot, so to speak.
She says, so men, if you really are hashtag with us and would like...
As to not hate you for all the millennia of woe you have produced and benefited from, start with this.
Lean out so we can actually just stand out without being beaten down.
Pledge to vote for feminist women only.
Don't run for office.
Don't be in charge of anything.
Step away from the power. We got this.
And please know that your crocodile tears won't be wiped away by us anymore.
We have every right to hate you.
You have done us wrong. Hashtag because patriarchy.
It is long past time to play hard for team feminism and win.
Don't run for office. Don't be in charge.
Why? Are you saying that women can't compete with men at all?
If men run for office and women run for office, that men have to bow down because women can't compete with them and win in an open fight, in open conflict, in an open competition for office?
Can you imagine saying to any other group?
Can you imagine saying to blacks, don't run for office?
Can you imagine saying to Muslims, don't do this, don't do that?
Can you imagine? But she feels perfectly safe and secure in saying this.
Even though you see there's this brutal, violent patriarchy that's out there, yet she feels perfectly comfortable typing and publishing this.
She's not fearing for her life.
She's not going to be dragged out and killed.
She's not going to be thrown in jail.
She's not going to be prosecuted for hate speech.
She's not going to any... She's saying we should beat up and kill men.
But is she going to be prosecuted for inciting riots or promoting violence?
No. Perfectly comfortable typing all of this out and putting it out there.
Although you see there's this brutal, dangerous, horrible, mean, ugly, vicious, vile patriarchy out there that just loves to crush and kill women and rape them.
But then if that was the case...
Why?
How is it possible if we're all so violent that you feel comfortable publishing and typing this?
I mean, try doing this in a totalitarian regime, right?
Try saying this about Stalin under communism.
Try saying this about Hitler under national socialism.
Try saying this about Mussolini.
Try saying this about an imam and the theocracy in Iran.
Try saying this about your elders in Somalia.
Just try. Go out where there really are violent oligarchies.
Try going out and saying all this stuff.
You wouldn't. You wouldn't.
I mean, this cry-bully stuff where you create this straw man enemy.
It's like all the people who feel comfortable picking on Christians, as opposed to, say, criticizing Islam.
Because they say, well, I'm going to be really brave here, and I'm going to criticize the religion that says, turn the other cheek and love your enemy.
Ooh, you moral hero, you!
And I've been that hypocrite myself in the past.
So, you know, you've got to recognize where your limitations are and be fair and be right.
So, it's crazy.
So stand aside. Only vote for feminist women.
Because you've all done such great evil.
Now, what should happen is, of course, since the government is so horrible and terrible and patriarchal that women shouldn't take any money from the government, right?
But we all know that's not going to happen.
And women should say, well, this money was earned by the patriarchy because it's mostly men who pay taxes, so we can't take any of that stuff.
We've got to dismantle all of these redistributionist laws because that's wrong.
We're relying on the violent patriarchy to enforce the taxes we use to live.
Got to get rid of that. And of course, none of that's going to happen.
And she's saying, let's use the vote, right?
Now, it took forever for men to get the vote.
You know, society was around for tens of thousands of years, and then men eventually got the vote, and there was about a 20-year period between men getting the vote and women getting the vote.
And that, apparently, that 20 years.
Now, why did men get the vote?
Well, in particular, because men paid the taxes, and men owned the property, and because men were subject to the draft.
And because men were subject to the draft, they had a great deal of interest and high stakes involved in what the government did.
So men fought for and bled for and died for getting the vote, and that's why they had the vote.
What did women do to get the vote?
Well, they nagged and they complained.
And because nagging and complaining and male guilt and male deference to women in the West, women got the vote too.
And one of the deals, I suppose, implicitly was, okay, we'll give you the vote, but...
You've really got to get up to speed on, say, politics and economics and political philosophy and so on.
And I've done a show on this a couple of months ago.
I mean, it didn't happen. Women remain relative to men, woefully ignorant of all of these things, because they've been told that their feelings are the same as truth by articles like this.
And so because they feel that it's true, it somehow is true, and because they've been provoked into resentment by these easy-to-explain discrepancies between male and female success in particular areas, I mean, if you want to look at the difference, let's check out the difference between getting money without working, which is the aristocracy, right?
Is it more men who get money without working or more women who get money without working?
If you count the welfare state and consumption of health care paid for by the state and old age pensions and alimony and palimony and child support and this and that, who is it who gets more money without actually having to work for it, men or women?
And then they say, but it's a patriarchy, you see, because that's exactly what men would do, is they would say, well, we're going to create a society where men go to war, where men have to do most of the physical labor, where women can stay home and take care of the children, because, I mean, I've been a stay-at-home dad.
It's a pretty great life.
I got to tell you, I still am a stay-at-home dad.
It's a pretty great life.
You know, I mean, I get to play with my daughter, I get to go to play centers, we get to We go rock climbing.
We get to do all kinds of cool stuff.
And we get to learn about the world together.
I get to refresh my knowledge of mathematics.
You know, it's a great life.
And the idea that you would create a society, if you have all of this magical automatic privilege, where you get to go to work down a mine-suckered coal dust and dying at the age of 40 and go into war and being taxed overtly to pay for women who stay home with babies and have fun cooing and giggling and gurgling, that's what patriarchy would do.
I don't know. I mean, how...
I don't know. It's just weird. And just ask men, you know, is there a secret handshake that you all get together and say, well, we're going to exploit women?
How on earth do you exploit women when men pay the vast majority of the bills in society?
How on earth is that exploitation of women anyway?
So it's kind of crazy, right?
And this idea that wage equality must be achieved comes at the expense of childbirth, comes at the expense of women having children.
So what do you do if you want to destroy a culture, a civilization?
You convince the women that wage egalitarianism, education and so on is the ideal and then you either explicitly or implicitly tell them not to have children.
That's how you destroy a civilization.
You say, you constantly derive motherhood as being dumb and stupid.
You attack the 50s at all times because the 50s was a time of high fertility.
In the West in particular, in America, people were having four, five, and six kids, right?
So if you want to destroy a culture, you've got to constantly attack the 50s.
You've got to constantly praise the 60s.
With the birth control and when birth rates began, you've got to convince people to have zero population growth.
You've got to convince them that it's not childless, it's child-free.
And you've got to publish articles that say, well, I wish I'd never had children.
Always were the white people on the cover, right?
Always is never, right?
And you focus on, you say, well, having more kids is bad for the environment.
But then you say, well, what about having like a million people from the third world come in and start consuming at first world rates?
Well, you can't talk about that at all, you see.
It's all just a bunch of don't have kids, don't have a future, don't...
And then what you do is you destabilize the family by saying to women that men are patriarchal, that men are horrible, that men hate them, that men exploit, that men control, that men are violent, that men are dangerous, that men are this, men are that.
And then lo and behold, look at that.
Families are unstable. Women don't get together with men.
And... You have very low childbirth rates.
You have to hate Christianity, of course, attack and oppose Christianity at all times because Christianity celebrates children.
Islam also celebrates children, but you really focus and attack Christianity and try and tempt people with all of the hedonism and, you know, have kids later, have kids down the road.
Well, as we all know from statistics, fertility begins to decline significantly for women in their 20s.
And by the time you get to your 30s, risks are high.
The capacity to have lots of children, you can't have four kids if you start in your 30s.
At least it would be extraordinarily unlikely.
So yeah, just tell women, have kids later, and you automatically are going to get to below birth rates.
And tell women that men are bad, and then you're going to destabilize the family, and then have children.
Women get lots of money for divorcing men, and you're going to destabilize the family, and then you can also have lots of the welfare state so that women don't need men in order to survive.
Then, you know, whoever you don't need, you can be contemptuous of and scorn, right?
You don't need them, right? And so it's hard to scorn masculinity when you have kids and the man is...
Working 12 hours a day to provide for you and the kids is kind of hard to look at him as exploiting you when he's paying all your bills.
But if you can get women to have the government pay all their bills, then they can scorn men because they don't need them because the government is forcing men to pay for women and children who aren't their own.
I mean, just look at look at Sweden.
Sweden at the moment is really hanging on the edge of survival and probably won't survive.
But it did eight centuries, right?
Over 800 years, they had plague, they had famine, wars, pestilence, starvation, Nazis, but they could barely survive one generation of feminist voters and politicians.
And this is by design.
Like all of this stuff, consciously or unconsciously, it's by design.
The death of the West is not a valid description.
The death of the West is not.
It's the murder of the West. And the goal is to make women as miserable as humanly possible.
Because, you know, women in general can nurse a grudge till it grows a beard.
And women are particularly susceptible to feeling exploited, just as, you know, the proletariat, quote, are.
And there's a variety of reasons for this we can go into another time.
But yeah, make women miserable.
Make them physically unattractive.
Say that fat is fine and you can pierce your nose and dye your hair and Dress like you have a good physique when you don't.
Make women as unattractive as possible.
Make them scold and nags and bitter and unhappy.
And this is a way of irradiating the reproductive capacities of an entire population.
Now, men will survive and men will find a way to flourish.
But I think it's really, really tough for women.
And this is horrible, a scalding destruction of women's capacity for happiness.
